Gates open on Iran, Iran takes Washington to the UN

As speculations about further US military action against Iran persists in the wake of the Consulate incidence and the deployments of military assets in the Persian Gulf arena, it was great to read Secretary of Defence Robert Gate's comments on the issue.

He said;

"Nobody wants another conflict in this region. My view is that there are many courses of actions available that do not involve a conflict with Iran. There is no need for that."

This did not mean however that he favoured an engagement route to dealing with Iran. He went on to say;

"Frankly, right at this moment there's really nothing the Iranians want from us, and so in any negotiation right now we would be the supplicant,"

When he issued a threat, it was directed at the enemy in tones that would not inflame but with a message that addressed the enemy directly and stated its import clearly.

"I think that our difficulties have given them (the Iranians) a tactical opportunity in the short term, but the United States is a very powerful country."

This is a rather forthright and trust-building approach to projecting American power. Robert Gates almost looks like a dove in the light of these comments. His track record on the other hand shows that he is indeed a hawk. But then, he is from another era when the men in the big offices were grown up and willing even to talk to evil. It was when the US still spoke softly and carried a big stick.

GATES OPENS UP

Those comments he made were significant for another set of reasons. On a day when it was confirmed that US forces had also sacked the Sudanese Embassy in Iraq, Mr. Gates gave a bit of insight into more benign possible meanings of the new military deployments in Iran's hood.

"Our Arab friends tend to see Iraq in the context of the new challenge from Iran," the official said. "That's clearly the Saudi perspective. So the secretary was able to reassure them that we want an Iraq that is a barrier against Iranian expansionism."

One can interpret this statement to mean that Iraq's majority-Sunni neighbours who are apprehensive about majority-Shiite Iran's growing regional profile, are concerned about Iranian involvement in Shiite militia activity in Iraq. The injection of carrier, missiles and other paraphernalia into the gulf if seen in this light might be no more than a move to reassure those countries that ole Uncle Sam will stand firm for them in the Iraqi end game.

The strategic value of this would be to get those countries to commit to helping resolve Iraq and at the same time helping rejuvenate the Palestinian peace process.

This analysis is yet to explain the brinkmanship of the consulate attack. But even it can be explained in this scenario. It could simply be that the Bush administration correctly assessed Iranian unwillingness to start a "shooting war". It would make sense too if the Iranians took this position. Given the asymmetries in military power between the two countries, it would be prudent to crouch, dig in and wait for the giant to arrive with his large footsteps into trenches he does not know as well as they do.

WHAT WOULD IRAN DO?

It might also explain why it took almost two days for Iran to take a clear reactive stance to those consulate attacks. They were deliberating and calmly, and it appears clearly also, appraising the situation. They have chosen to take the matter to the United Nations Security Council.

There is a clear advantage for them in taking this route, not least of which would be weakening the diplomatic hand of Washington which recently got the same body to sanction Iran. The other advantage is to legitimise any next steps of action. While those next steps are unlikely to be warlike, if George Bush's America attacks it would again swing the pendulum of world opinion and at least international opinion a bit more in their direction. Iran, despite its rabid President, has very shrewd rulers and its foreign policy has been robust and at the very least very much in service of its best interests.

NEJAD TOLD TO BUTT HIS ASS OUT (Pardon my Persian)

Talking about that country's rabid President. He is in more trouble apparently. We heard about how he lost those elections in December. We heard about how Conservatives and Reformers have united against him (kinda like the Hagel-Biden coalition aint it?). The latest news is that Iran's supreme leader, the also wild-eyed but infinitely more wise Ayatollah Khameini has lost confidence in Barmy Ahmy.

An influential Iranian newspaper owned by the Ayatollah, and one which almost certainly reflects his views, has asked the 'diplomatic' Mr. Ahmadinejad to stay out of nuclear matters. Wonder why the National Review or the Weekly Standard won't also ask another foot-in-mouth diseased President to shut up?

Iran continues to show that it has enough balance in its political system which as it is has many political centers and contrary to what Ignoblus thinks is more evened out than it looks.

If this approach to the analysis is correct, there is reason to breathe easier as the cooler heads seem to be checking the blitzers on either side. Still, with the Neocons still having sway over the most powerful man in the world, we can't rest too easy. Not for long.

AT NEOCON MERCY

Foreign Policy magazine did an excellent piece in this month's edition. They studied the psychology and dynamics at play within an administration trying to address the issue of why hawks win or seem to win internal debates within power cabals. It's instructive for understanding just why the discredited and infinitely drivel-driven Neocons will continue to sway President Bush and why they might directly or indirectly influence even the next President of the United States.

Looking at the situation with Iran as it is today, and the spurned opportunities to make peace with Iran when Iran begged for it, one can conclude that the conditions for an attack on Iran have been set. If political and military realities prevent Bush from doing so, the next President or the one after that may very well do so. If Senator John McCain is elected and US involvement with Iraq somehow ends before his term, iran will be top of his list.

Which conditions have been set? The most important one is that the Iranian threat has been, and is being talked up to the point where Joe Western Public sees Iran as a significant threat on many levels. It is just a matter of time before the right "provocation", the end of a regime of sanctions which would beckon military action under the Bush doctrine, or the Israel dimension lends cause to the anti-Iranian sentiment.

Pray for peace. If you don't pray, chug a beer, have an orgasm or stand on your head. You would need to do something.

Back To Top